Jump to content

Talk:Huawei/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.?

This article Huawei should have a redirection to Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. I was writing the article on VRRP and when i tried to link against the word Huawei Technologies, nothing shows up. I feel Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd is more correct than Huawei. If someone manage to introduce a redirection, do you mind updating the article on VRRP to use the whole vendor name, just in case in futire the word Huawei becomes ambiguous

2006 revenue for Huawei

REVENUE: The 2006 revenue for Huawei is USD 8.5 billion instead of USD 11 billion, this number can be easily found from the annual report which can be downloaded from Huawei's website. Seems like the original writer didn't do much research. Don't get me wrong, I like the company, but nationalism is not an excuse to make up data on wikipedia.

-

Really? I just checked (Aug 4, 2007) at http://www.huawei.com/corporate_information/financial_highlights.do and this is what I found

"Contract sales reached USD 11 billion in 2006, a 34% increase from last year"

Should I blame on your stupidity for make up data on wikipedia?

-

Please don't be rude. Contract sales does not equal to revenue. Some of the sales are scheduled to be transacted in the next fiscal year, only contracts have been signed. The official figure is $8.5 billions, and it can be found from the annual fiscal report that can be downloaded from Huawei's website. Download the annual report here: http://www.huawei.com/corporate_information.do As you can see, the Revenue and Contract Sales are two separate figures.

-

OK. My mistake. About being rude, you were the one who blamed me for being nationalistic and making up data. Why did you assume that I made up the data? Should I blame on racism? - Please be profesional in this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.63.106.231 (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Why sources should be cited according to Wikipedia:Citing sources

   * To credit a source for providing useful information and to avoid claims of plagiarism.
   * To show that your edit isn't original research.
   * To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor.
   * To help users find additional reliable information on the topic.
   * To improve the overall credibility and authoritative character of Wikipedia.
   * To reduce the likelihood of editorial disputes, or to resolve any that arise.
   * To ensure that material about living persons is reliably sourced and complies with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

The parts about quality are correct

I (am) working for Chungwha Telecom in Taiwan. We bought Huawei datacards. We are now sorry (that) we did. I am sad to say (that) Huawei cards are not very good. Every thing about quality in this (article) is very much correct.

---

Has Chungwha Telecom done any testings before it bought Huawei datacards???

I haven't seen any reports about the quality problems. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony#Batteries, and see how it really should be done (i.e., fact + reference). Also, when you edit this article, please focus on the facts, not put your personal feelings (for or against Huawei) into it.

Hey, Huawei won Vodaphone's yearly High performance Award. Do not hesitate to let Huawei know your product problem. They could do something to correct it.

Someone Keeps Removing information stuff they dont like

It seems someone(s) from Huawei is stipping off perfectly valid information on their products from this page. They've done it often. This page should be locked for editing to prevent this.

---

I just want to make clear that I am not working for Huawei. If you are so upset about Huawei's "quality" problems, please add references to newspaper articles(s). I haven't seen any myself. Fact! Please! I also think that the page should be locked for editing to prevent people writing their VERY PERSONAL views here.

---

There's little newspaper articles(s) to support ANYTHING in this article. Huawei is a DPRC (Watch Your Mouth!!!) Company and therefore has little transparancy. The information on products in this page comes from people working in the industry and people who have used the products. If everything that goes into Wikipedia has to first be printed in a newspaper then Wikipedia is worthless...

Why don't you find FACTS that what is said about the products isn't true?? Have you ever used a Huawei product?

---

Who do you work for? My advice: if you don't like Huawei, don't waste your time here. Get another brand! Nobody asked you to buy Huawei. You need to add reference to support the stuff you wrote. By the way, Huawei is a private company, so there is no need for "transparancy".

Also, how could you write that "someone(s) from Huawei is stipping off perfectly valid information"? How do you know that this person is working for Huawei? Who says that your info is "perfectly valid information"?

Relationship with Cisco

would someone write about huawei and its relationship (in term of its product) with north american's Cisco?

  • As far as I know there are competitors. They have very similiar network equipement, somewhat cheaper but also inferior with regards to some operating characteristics. --Lord Yaar 09:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I heard that Huawei has been sued by some companies about the operating system that powered Huawei equipements. They said that it was a copy of the Cisco IOS. As a result, Huawei had an interdiction of sale in several countries. Rodary 18:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The case with Cisco: Personnally, I think that the key evidence given by Cisco is not true but not fair: Huawei was simulating Cisco's CLI interface so that their end-users can shift to Huawei's products easily without much training. However, the truth is that almost the whole datacommunication industry is dominated by Ciscso in late 1990s, everybody got used to Cisco's CLI, which is something like an actual standard. So if some small companies want to enter this market, the first thing he has to do is to do similar with Cisco product, espcially the CLI interface. Otherwise, it is not easy to survive. Even today, the same thing is still happening, not in Huawei but other small datacomm companies.

Hence, I believe that copying Cisco's user interface is not an innotale beviour. Because not like faking other products, this won't mislead the user, instead, the end users know clearly they are not using Cisco products.

Re the case with Cisco - the case was more than copying the CLI. Huaweri stole the whole operating system by reverse engineering it and adding what they wanted. They were caught out when Cisco found identical bugs between IOS and Huawei's OS.

Company's History

Does anyone have more information on this company's early history? Especially these points which don't appear on company's website.

1.History (if any) before 1988 2.Precise establishment date: When was this company registered officially in China? 3.Founder(s): Who or what group of people started this company? 4.Funding: Who funded this company? It's in manufacturing business so it needed a considerable amount of money to get started. 5.First product: What did it first sell?

--Revth 03:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

This article reads more like an advertisment than anything else... --Mamboman 06:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC) 

They start to sell some PBX dina...evicers. Buy in HKG and sell in ch


"The case with Cisco: Personnally, I think that the key evidence given by Cisco is not true but not fair: Huawei was simulating Cisco's CLI interface so that their end-users can shift to Huawei's products easily without much training. However, the truth is that almost the whole datacommunication industry is dominated by Ciscso in late 1990s, everybody got used to Cisco's CLI, which is something like an actual standard. So if some small companies want to enter this market, the first thing he has to do is to do similar with Cisco product, espcially the CLI interface. Otherwise, it is not easy to survive. Even today, the same thing is still happening, not in Huawei but other small datacomm companies.

Hence, I believe that copying Cisco's user interface is not an innotale beviour. Because not like faking other products, this won't mislead the user, instead, the end users know clearly they are not using Cisco products."

This comment is completely untrue. I've been working in the Data Communications industry for going on 10 years now as a hardware engineer and I've worked with switches from: Cisco, to Juniper, to Extreme, to Foundry. I can say with pretty good certainty that the CLI interfaces between these manufacturers is NOT the same or even similar. A command such as "Show Port Statistics" will do very different things on a Cisco box vs. an Extreme box. Therefore, the operating systems employed by these switch manufacturers is very different. Huawei's CLI commands and bugs being similar to Cisco's clearly points to stealing of intellectual property as it doesn't take much Operating System know how to change these things. Finally, to all you Huawei supporters, please put away your "Racist" cards as I AM of Chinese decent. I simply choose to defend those who innovate rather than copy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gugers (talk • contribs) 01:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding bias template

This article sounds too much like a advertaising for the company. There is no data to support the claims of market share, sales amount or "No. 1" on the market. --Lord Yaar 09:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This Lord yaya guy sounds just like a bitter Cisco employee. :)

Never worked for Cisco, probaly never will. This article really looks biased and if you read entire contents of the talk page you will see that I am not the only one who does not agree with the information provided. --Lord Yaar 14:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lor Yaar. This article does sound like a company advertisement. Of course, Huawei is a leading Telecommunication equipment vendor; no doubt about it. But it also has many mnay shortfalls, which I think should be mentioned in the article make it unbiased. Some of the points that go against Huawei are:

  • Pathetic work culture (I know it is already mentioned)
  • Lack of transparency in company structure and financial reporting (Huawei keeps mentioning "contract value" but never discloses the revenue. (I know Huawei is a privately owned company and hence need not report any numbers; but it is rather strange for a company of Hauweis size to talk about contract value rather than revenue
  • Disregard for intellectual property| Attempts to steal intellectual property: Of course the widely known Cisco suit is mentioned. Another equally famous (at least in the Telecom and Networking industry circles) scandal involving Huawei is not mentioned. It happened in one of the Spercomm shows where a Huwei employee was caught taking pictures of competitor equipment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.16.115 (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ownership

There are some serious doubts about the long-term viability of Huawei. The firm received a multi billion dollar bond from a Chinese state operated bank which allegedly is used to undercut prices. Also, the company is said to have ties with the People's Liberation Army and was banned from bidding on a contract in India over a perceived espionage risk.

All according to a recent Newsweek story [1]

Well Inida just does't wanna buy stuff from China, espionage risk or not.

There are too many rumors on Huawei Technologies in these several years during the rising of this company from China to the world telecommunication market. Among them, two key ones are mentions here, I would like to explain something I know: (1)The relationship with the Chinese army: There are two major 'connections' between Huawei and the People's Liberation Army: one is that Renzhengfei,the CEO, was retired from PLA. However, because he was only a middle level techincal officer, traditionally not influencial in Chinese army, Renzhengfei can not take much advantage of that career.

Another is Huawei have been got some contracts from PLA all these years. But those contracts should not bigger than 0.1 Billion USD or less than 2% of the revenue of Huawei.

The founder of Huawei was actually laid off by PLA, so PLA was nothing more than a former employer of Ren Zheng Fei. It's ridiculous to accuse the company is controlled by the PLA just because Ren used to work for it.

这里的确有不少胡说八道。欺负中国人不懂英语，外国人不懂汉语(should be 中国人不懂英语 instead?)，所以不来纠正你。一个退伍军官半公司，全世界到处都是，偏偏就中国人不行 --210.21.229.218 05:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you please repeat that in english? --Lord Yaar 06:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I will do a translation of the guy above. "There is so much BSing here. You guys are taking advantages of Chinese people's lack of English skills. Foreigners don't understand Chinese, so they don't correct you. A retired army officer starts a company is very common in the world, only doesn't work out with Chinese". I know it sounds a bit incoherent but this is the exact translation. It seemed like the poster didn't think too much before posting it.

Thanks for the translation. It seems that it would be useful to find out more about the founder of Huawei. --Lord Yaar 07:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That translation is pretty bad. Maybe the translator should improve his/her Chinese first. He/She (who wrote in Chinese) meant that a retired army officer can set up companys every where in the world, but NOT in China (because non-Chinese dislike the "connection" between PLA and Huawei).

I write this chinese sentence longlong ago. I mean, Renzhengfei is a normal army officer. He leave PLA, and create huawei.
Huawei is a normal private company.
But this article private too much rumours guess. Why? may because author don't like chinese govormnet, may he didn't like chinese arm, didn;t like huawei. I don't know, but don't cheating, please.
I was working in Huawei few years before, and leave it to other company.So I know this compnay , but havn't any releatione with it. 116.25.232.97 (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe this article doesn't just seem to be advirtising, it IS advertising : i copied and paced in Google search the whole sentence "Its ASIC designing capability is among the most advanced in this field worldwide." and I found... 24 results, for instance : www.tcn-uk.org/ cb.aspx?page=D6763515-BCF4-4B86-816D-887E79B66089 or www.bm.ust.hk/ismt/seminars/LiuNanjie110306.doc or www.cbcglobelink.org/cbcglobelink/ events/NIF05/Sponsors.htm

All these were pages or websites where the text about Huawei was clearly written by Huawei itself.

You can contribute to this article yourself.

Wouldn't any company of the nature and size of Huawei not work with their local army, here the PLA? Does the PLA have about 700 military bases outside their own country? Just asking.

Where we are dealing with mega bucks, there is always some hanky panky going on. I remember a radio interview with someone from the Australian telecom, who installed phone systems in Vietnam, just before the sanctions were lifted by President Clinton. And then the interviewee said "As soon as the US lifted the sanctions we could not even hire a vehicle any more in Vietnam and had to withdraw." Bad behaviour by one is not a good reason to do likewise, but some people should come off their high horses. I had never heard of Huawei until last night, and as a novelist, machinations and history of telecommunication companies do not rate highly in my life. Expose bad behaviour, yes, but do not be one eyed, please. 144.136.177.7 (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Cease and desist

I would like to ask the IPs from Japan (yes, you) to cease and desist vandalizing this article. CJK 01:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing valid information from this page. If this continues the page may be locked down. --Lord Yaar 09:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't wanna discuss politics with you (user CJK, who is "a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy") here. However, considering that people have very different view about the "International" embargo against Iraq and the second Iraq war, the stuff you added is NOT appropriate on this page. I intend to keep deleting it. Anyway, who don't you add the information to the "Iraq Embargo" page?

Also, who is this Lord Yaar guy? Why do you have problems with Huawei?

I do not have any problems with Huawei. The information about involvement with Iraq is valid and cites its sources. Therefore removal of that section is unwarranted and constitutes POV pushing. Plase not that the disputed section does not condemn Huawei, it merly states that Huawei supplied Iraq regardles of UN-imposed sactions. Personal view of anybody of such sanctions are irrelevant in this case. On the other hand, the line

In particular, the fiber-optics enhanced Iraqi air defenses during a time when Iraq was firing upon Allied aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones.

may be considered a POV and I wasn't able to discern this exact and particular usage from provided references. That's why in my last edit I have not included this line. I think that this considers a good compromise and that the information should be kept. On a personal note, to the poster above me, could you at least sign your question so that I may know who is curious about me? --Lord Yaar 09:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. I removed the references to IraqWatch.org and GlobalSecurity.org though. I don't know anything about them. Who are behind these organizations? Very skeptical! I found one BBC article from 2002 though.

Please stop. These are valid sources, and it is quite notable that this company installed such a vast system during a time when there was international sanctions. You attempt to obscure the issue by pointing out that other companies did this too, but it doesn't matter in an article specifically about this company. Furthermore, language like "according to" is weasel-wording. CJK 00:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
While I don't have any knowledge about IraqWatch.org, you can easily get information about GlobalSecurity on Wikipedia itself. Therefore I agree with CJK at least regarding this reference. In my opinion the BBC article should stay as an additional reference. CJK, could you point an exact excerpt of the cited references that proves the "In particular..." claim, as I was unable to find such passage. Admitably I just briefly scaned over the documents. --Lord Yaar 19:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I did NOT say "according to". It's from the BBC article at "http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2591351.stm". Read it first! About pointing out other companies, it is very interesting that CJK (and BBC) named only Huawei, even though many companies from US, UK, France, Japan etc were also accused. Vankenta 07:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I had enough. I will keep deleting it.

The relevant quote is
One of China’s leading makers of communication networks; established in 1988; in 2000-2001, helped Iraq outfit its air defenses with fiber optic equipment, without UN approval, and thus in violation of the international embargo against Iraq...
I changed the wording to avoid confusion. The anon clearly does not want to discuss these facts, unfortunately there seem to be any way to stop him (them?). I suspect they have ties to the company and don't want its image to be tarnished. CJK 23:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
CJK the wording now looks really proffesional and encyclopedic. I just hope that the anonymous won't start his silly reverts. If he does we could go for semi-protection of the page. --Lord Yaar 13:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
142.58.xxx.xxx, the address that the most recent anoying reverts come from. So who are you, anonymous user? A student interning in Huawei? A member of the faculty on a grant? Or did you just spoof the address and are the one and the same as 133.15.xxx.xxx? Please have the decency to sign your edits. --Lord Yaar 09:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not working for Huawei and have NO connections to Huawei. OK!? Do CJK and Lord Yaar work for IraqWatch.org or FOX??? Yes, I am the one and the same, so do NOT publish my personal information such as IP addresses online! I have just registered! By the way, who are you (i.e., CJK and Lord Yaar)??? Vankenta 08:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for semi-protection

To the user who "had enough": Since you obviously intent to continously vandalise the page without providing any reasons for removal of the section in question I have filled a request for semi-protecting this page. I hope that you will register, stop doing anonymous vandalism and will part take in meaningful discussion while providing valid arguments for re-wording or removing the section you so reverently vandalise. --Lord Yaar 09:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The request for semi-protection was denied, citing not enought recent activities. I have added additional references to the disputed section and added dates to all the references that had them missing. Citied references are from FOX News, The Washington Post and LA Times. I think that the anonymous vandal should have heard about these sites. --Lord Yaar 14:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Fox News? :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vankenta (talk • contribs) 08:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Huawei and Iraq

Wikipedia is NOT a place for CJK's right wing propaganda. So back off CJK (and Lord Yaar)!!! I can agree on that the United States alleged in 2001 that Huawei has assisted Iraq in its telecommunications in violation of United Nations sanctions. No more than that!!! Vankenta 06:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Its not an allegation when there is overwhelming evidence of its existance. CJK 21:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Really!? Don't be so sure. As far as I know, no weapon of mass destruction was found in Iraq even though the "fact" was presented to the UN and the whole world by the U.S. goverment. I will NOT discuss this issue with CJK ever again. Vankenta 01:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Who talks about weapons of mass destruction? We are talking about and providing evidence about installing telecommunications equipement in a country that was subject to UN sanctions. As to your sarcastic reaction to mentioning FOX news is silly. While I do not have much respect for this news outlet, I have included is as a reference to have both left- and right-wing sources cited. As to who I am - just a wikipedian, european (so I care little for US politics). I just want a valid fact backed up by good and many sources to stay in this article. --Lord Yaar 09:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Lord Yaar? It does not sound so European to me. Well, we are not talking about weapons of mass destruction, but the question is can right wing media such as FOX be trusted? I have no problem if you make reference to e.g. BBC and even CNN. I suggest that we go through the formulations here in the discussion session before you publish it on the main page. Here is a couple of points we have to make clear: (1) Washington has ALLEGED that Chinese companies have assisted Iraq in its telecommunications in violation of United Nations sanctions. However, the United States has not accused Chinese workers of building fiber optic cables specifically. (see CNN's report at http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/03/08/us.china.iraq/index.html). (2) China did NOT acknowledged any wrongdoing. China's foreign minister Tang Jiaxuan said "Chinese enterprises and corporations have not assisted Iraq in building the project of fiber optic cable for air defense". (also from the same CNN report) (3) The United States and Britain carried out airstrikes on Iraqi air defense systems near Baghdad in Feb 2001. The United States said the radar systems had recently been upgraded, allowing Baghdad to fire more accurately at planes patrolling the no-fly zones over Iraq. (CNN) Vankenta 18:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Why does my nick has to 'sound european'? What does to sound european mean to you? Coś napisane w języku środkowo-europejskim brzmi przekonująco? Може би нещо на кирилица искаш? Please note that references I have provided were not only from FOX but also from Washington Post - as far as I know they are not right-wing, although my grasp of american politics is weak.

I propose that we work together on rewording the section. Things to include in it: a) the fact that there was accusation of Huawei involvement in Iraq, citing sources which carried such accusation, b) refutal of the accusation - citing the CNN article you provided would be good here c) BOTH points of view - some sources say that Huawei did the alleged works in Iraq, some say they didn't - let's just present them both. Things NOT TO INCLUDE: a)any opinion or analysys of the cited facts - accustion took place, was refuted, that's all; b) any weasel words or expressions ie. saying Saddam Hussein's Iraq - Iraq is a country it does not belong to one man; also "The system was used for both military and civilian purposes and represented the most open breach of the sanctions to date" sounds pushy to me and I think that this fragment should be removed.

So I propose following wording: In 2000 Huawei allegedly installed a telecommunications system in Iraq, in violation of U.N. sanctions. It was claimed that Iraqi air defenses were outfitted with fiber-optics during a time when Iraq was firing upon Allied aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones. The accustation was denied in 2001 by China's foreign minister Tang Jiaxuan who stated that Chinese enterprises and corporations assisted Iraq in building "the project of fiber optic cablefor air defense".

Please note that appropriate references should be added in the above paragraph - I say let's keep AT LEAST CNN, Washington Post and GlobalSecurity.

So, Vankenta, CJK, what do you think? Can we finally come to an agreement and stop this silly revert thing? --Lord Yaar 11:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Vankenta here: I am pretty tired of this. I think that Lord Yaar's proposal is acceptable. By the way, the last sentence should be "China's foreign minister Tang Jiaxuan who stated that Chinese enterprises and corporations DID NOT assist Iraq ...". HWDEF 06:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Vankenta here: Well, it seems that there is no hope for CJK. HWDEF 18:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I updated the article with the proposed wording by Lord Yaar. HWDEF 15:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a FACT, not an allegation, that this company had the gaull to violate UN sanctions against Iraq by installing a tellocommunication system. China's government alleged that Chinese companies did not insist in building the fiber-optics cables for air defense and their objection has been included. Their statement does not leave out the possibility that they sold the cables or that they installed them for other purposes than air defense and were diverted. Why must you persist with this BS? Are you concerned that this damages stock value? CJK 01:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a fact according to CJK. It is easy to tell where CJK stands by checking his contributions to Wikipedia; and it seems to me that CJK is not here to present facts. Also, Huawei is not listed, so what stock value? Why "Saddam Hussein's Iraq", how cheap can you (i.e., CJK) be? Should I tell you (i.e., CJK) who really supported Saddam Hussein? HWDEF 16:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact according to multiple sources presented. If you are trying to argue that no such business was conducted with Iraq, cease and desist. There is no good reason for you to obscure well-known facts. CJK 20:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Expanding this article in other languages

I plan to translate this full article into Polish and Bulgarian (currently stub there) as soon as we come to agreement with Vanketa and CJK. I hope that this will be proof enough to Vanketa that I am indeed european. --Lord Yaar 11:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Vankenta: OK. Please do. HWDEF 07:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuit with Cisco removed.

As far as I know, the part about the Huawei-Cisco lawsuit has been removed. Shall I revert and repost what have been said?

If you agree, post on my talk page, I will revert it. By the way, the IP address of the person that removed it is 203.197.168.166, and he removed the section on 27th May, 08

--KelvinHOWiknerd(talk) 14:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Since no one seemed to be interested, I reverted it.--KelvinHOWiknerd(talk) 08:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


I actually intentionally came looking for info about the Cisco lawsuit. I think it would be good to add it back in - maybe in a separate section? http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/corp_012303.html Zinger (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I also intentionally came to the Huawei article to find more information about competition with Cisco. Of which the lawsuit is key information. A section on it should be resurected. That there was a lawsuit is a well known fact - not even mentioning it here deminishes the credibitilty of this article. --- Dr_Unix (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is it acceptable Wikipedia policy to add some information on the proper pronunciation for non-Chinese speakers? Probably in a dictionary-style format. (Is it wha-way, wha-wee, wow-wee, something completely different?) Andyross (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

wha-way -munford (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
How do you know?94.230.80.85 (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
It's whah-way - I know - I'm sitting in the Huawei headquarters in Shenzhen, China right now Metadaddy (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The article currently includes this: 'pronounced as "who-are way" in English', which doesn't make sense. If anyone is certain of the (western) pronunciation, do edit away. 82.81.2.161 (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

GPL Issues

I believe the statement regarding Huawei's violation of the GPL may be incorrect. While the reference is to a forum post where no one responds by providing a link to the code, there is a related forum post where they give appropriate contact information for receiving the source code on CD. As far as I can tell, that would be within the scope of compliance with the GPL. The link is here: Copyright Notice and Warranty Disclaimer

The article should probably be updated to reference this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.196.136 (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Section

I removed the entire section, which has been heavily edited recently with heavy bias from both sides. The section was poorly sourced, and part of it was simply copy and pasted from the sources, a copyright concern. If anyone wants to add it back, feel free, but remember it needs to be npov. Beach drifter (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see how these two diffs are problematic [2] and [3]. The information about Huawei's connection with the PLA are important, however. An Australian journalist recently wrote a long story about that in the Financial Review. I'll find it and summarise information in it, and do some research on this otherwise. I was quite surprised to look through this article and not find that information. Generally I think the idea of a "controversy" section is a little cheap; why not just put that information in a theme based way throughout the article? Makes more sense to me.--Asdfg12345 16:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Like this: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/huawei-in-asios-net/story-e6frgamf-1225770085462 -- there are also a bunch of links at the side. Maybe will take 45 mins or an hour to summarise them all and add a section about PLA links. Worth it though.--Asdfg12345 16:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone keeps vandalizing this section - maybe the article needs to be locked after all.

Agree on the quality of some links (not familiar with The Register or The Australian as news source - credible?) - however, the rest of the material is rock solid and adds the matter to the picture. FYI, a similar section exists on major competition - look Cisco Systems and Juniper Networks up. Corporate history cannot be rewritten with a flick of a mouse on wikipedia.


Yes, the Australian is highly reliable. --Asdfg12345 22:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Huawei/Archive_1&oldid=1142353921"